5 ms·
There are two objectives that western regimes have for pushing these draconian measures: the first is to end the historically unprecedented era of free and anon
by gregbot 9mo ago
There are two objectives that western regimes have for pushing these draconian measures: the first is to end the historically unprecedented era of free and anonymous political speech by ordinary people. The second is to prevent anti-imperialist arguments and perspectives from reaching the eyes and ears of young western people. Young people will only hear the perspectives taught in government school and on corporate media. No choosing a different perspective early in life.
On the idea that this is needed to “protect children” it is the job of parents not the state to decide what media their children consume. If you want to make that easier for parents then regulate and mandate parental controls and make sure parents always have the choice.
- lawn 9mo agoOr, you know, they actually want to protect the mental health of people. You may argue that the approach is bad (I would agree) but it's not because of some evil mastermind plot.
- JoshTriplett 9mo agoThere's been some pretty clear information from countries enacting online ID laws that they want it precisely so that they can control discourse, not for any kind of protection. This isn't a hypothetical, it's the actual stated goals. https://bsky.app/profile/tupped.bsky.social/post/3lwgcmswmy222 https://bsky.app/profile/tupped.bsky.social/post/3lwgcmswmy2... > The U.K. Online Safety Act was (avowedly, as revealed in a recent High Court case) “not primarily aimed at protecting children” but at regulating “services that have a significant influence over public discourse.”
- barbazoo 9mo ago> There's been some pretty clear information from countries enacting online ID laws that they want it precisely so that they can control discourse, not for any kind of protection. Please do share that information.
- cocoto 9mo agoFree speech violations in UK and the country pushing for more ID checks is a simple example.
- barbazoo 9mo agoI'm not seeing how it's an example showing that they're doing it "precisely so that they can control discourse". You could still argue that ID checks are done to partition content by underage/adult which for many is a reasonable thing to do absent any better solutions.
- JoshTriplett 9mo agoEdited the comment to include an example.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- Centigonal 9mo agoI don't think that social media has had that effect in practice. We're all scrolling through algorithmic feeds on walled gardens owned by some of the greatest capitalists in history. Domestic and foreign disinformation campaigns are not uncommon, and have affected election results and fomented atrocities (as in Myanmar). The US, which birthed most of these technologies, has grown more imperialistic and conservative since their adoption. EDIT: I saw your edit. I agree that enforcing an industry-wide standard for parental controls, preferable one that can be set per-device and must be respected by all social media services, is the right way to do this. Internet ID laws are dystopian insanity.
- anigbrowl 9mo agoSo you say, but I don't think social media companies are benign or have the best interest of visitors at heart. If anything they make it far easier to identify users who are susceptible to propaganda and feed it to them in bulk.
- gregbot 9mo agoi totally agree, but the solution to corporate manipulation of our feed is to regulate social media so that the first amendment applies to the algorithm so the companies themselves dont have the power to push their own propaganda. People should decide for themselves what perspectives they agree with online.
- tzs 9mo ago> i totally agree, but the solution to corporate manipulation of our feed is to regulate social media so that the first amendment applies to the algorithm so the companies themselves dont have the power to push their own propaganda. What does it mean for the 1st to apply to the algorithm? For example, who would have to do what in order to violate the algorithm's 1st amendment rights?
- taco_emoji 9mo agoThen the social media companies need regulation.
- gregbot 9mo agoExactly. The fact that western governments have held that the corporations themselves have a free speech right to control your feed and speech but you do not have a free speech right to choose what the algorithm feeds you or what you say is absolutely stunning and reveals that capitalism is more powerful than liberalism in the west.
- NickC25 9mo agoToo bad, they have too much money to bribe lawmakers with. Zuck is worth a quarter trillion dollars, and he ain't in a rush to give up so much as a penny of that if it doesn't fufill his goals of enriching himself further.
- ryandvm 9mo agoThere are a lot of problems with age verification schemes, but you are doing your position a disservice by suggesting that anybody that doesn't want their kid to be bullied on Snapchat is actually just a puppet of fascist regimes trying to stifle political speech. You should learn to appreciate the nuance of opinions that differ from your own if you actually want to, you know, convince anyone of anything.
- logicchains 9mo ago>anybody that doesn't want their kid to be bullied on Snapchat is actually just a puppet of fascist regimes trying to stifle political speech. They are fascists if they want to prevent everybody else's kids using social media just because they're too shitty parents to teach their own kids that sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me.
- ianbutler 9mo agoWe shouldn't ban social media we should ban algorithmically curated feeds that push any specific type of content. Outrage sells and so platform curated feeds have curated outrage and extreme content. In practice I haven't seen much useful political discourse by the average person, but as long as we don't selectively amplify voices through machine signals and they NATURALLY accrue followings then whatever I guess.
- gherkinnn 9mo agoBan targeted ads while you're at it and throw around the most savage fines for companies who don't comply. The world will be better for it.
- oplumb 9mo agoI'd go even further and say ban ads and the selling and collecting of personal data in general. Maybe someone can help me there, but I fail to see neither the inherent public good of it nor the one of any service that requires it to function.
- Propelloni 9mo ago> the first is to end the historically unprecedented era of free and anonymous political speech by ordinary people. The second is to prevent anti-imperialist arguments and perspectives from reaching the eyes and ears of young western people. Young people will only hear the perspectives taught in government school and on corporate media. No choosing a different perspective early in life. Yet my motherland, the nation with arguably the most liberal social media in the world and the least functional school system among "western regimes", is the most socially polarized, has voted in an insecure bully on a platform of hate and prejudice, and is about to plunge into imperialistic conquest, possibly against our allies for 70 years. I can't see how age-gating social media can do any more harm.
- ngruhn 9mo agoWell said. The value of free speech is that all perspectives are heard, so that the best hopefully prevails. Social media is not doing that. You only see the shit you already agree with or the most ridiculous and extreme points on the other side.
- protocolture 9mo ago>least functional school system among "western regimes" Its the least functional because its the most dedicated to erasing history and promoting pro state propaganda.
- yongjik 9mo ago> The second is to prevent anti-imperialist arguments and perspectives from reaching the eyes and ears of young western people. Sounds like you're complaining that these measures will make it hard for authoritarian governments to astroturf young western people so that they radicalize and hate each other more.
- ghssds 9mo agoI think fighting authoritarianism with authoritarian measures is counter-productive.
- logicchains 9mo agoBecause everything my government does is good and everything the other governments do is bad, as that's what the state-sponsored media I consume told me!